likely thing, indeed, that such assemblies as are altogether remote
from civil affairs should be most apt to embroil them. Oh, but civil
assemblies are composed of men that differ from one another in matters
of religion, but these ecclesiastical meetings are of persons that are
all of one opinion. As if an agreement in matters of religion were
in effect a conspiracy against the commonwealth; or as if men would
not be so much the more warmly unanimous in religion the less
liberty they had of assembling. But it will be urged still that
civil assemblies are open and free for any one to enter into,
whereas religious conventicles are more private and thereby give
opportunity to clandestine machinations. I answer that this is not
strictly true, for many civil assemblies are not open to everyone. And
if some religious meetings be private, who are they (I beseech you)
that are to be blamed for it, those that desire, or those that
forbid their being public! Again, you will say that religious
communion does exceedingly unite men's minds and affections to one
another and is therefore the more dangerous. But if this be so, why is
not the magistrate afraid of his own Church; and why does he not
forbid their assemblies as things dangerous to his Government? You
will say because he himself is a part and even the head of them. As if
he were not also a part of the commonwealth, and the head of the whole
people!

  Let us therefore deal plainly. The magistrate is afraid of other
Churches, but not of his own, because he is kind and favourable to the
one, but severe and cruel to the other. These he treats like children,
and indulges them even to wantonness. Those he uses as slaves and, how
blamelessly soever they demean themselves, recompenses them no
otherwise than by galleys, prisons, confiscations, and death. These he
cherishes and defends; those he continually scourges and oppresses.
Let him turn the tables. Or let those dissenters enjoy but the same
privileges in civils as his other subjects, and he will quickly find
that these religious meetings will be no longer dangerous. For if
men enter into seditious conspiracies, it is not religion inspires
them to it in their meetings, but their sufferings and oppressions
that make them willing to ease themselves. Just and moderate
governments are everywhere quiet, everywhere safe; but oppression
raises ferments and makes men struggle to cast off an uneasy and
tyrannical yoke. I know that seditions are very frequently raised upon
pretence of religion, but it is as true that for religion subjects are
frequently ill treated and live miserably. Believe me, the stirs
that are made proceed not from any peculiar temper of this or that
Church or religious society, but from the common disposition of all
mankind, who when they groan under any heavy burthen endeavour
naturally to shake off the yoke that galls their necks. Suppose this
business of religion were let alone, and that there were some other
distinction made between men and men upon account of their different
complexions, shapes, and features, so that those who have black hair
(for example) or grey eyes should not enjoy the same privileges as
other citizens; that they should not be permitted either to buy or
sell, or live by their callings; that parents should not have the
government and education of their own children; that all should either
be excluded from the benefit of the laws, or meet with partial judges;
can it be doubted but these persons, thus distinguished from others by
the colour of their hair and eyes, and united together by one common
persecution, would be as dangerous to the magistrate as any others
that had associated themselves merely upon the account of religion?
Some enter into company for trade and profit, others for want of
business have their clubs for claret. Neighbourhood joins some and
religion others. But there is only one thing which gathers people into
seditious commotions, and that is oppression.

  You will say "What, will you have people to meet at divine service
against the magistrate's will?" I answer: Why, I pray, against his
will? Is it not both lawful and necessary that they should meet?
Against his will, do you say? That is what I complain of; that is
the very root of all the mischief. Why are assemblies less
sufferable in a church than in a theatre or market? Those that meet
there are not either more vicious or more turbulent than those that
meet elsewhere. The business in that is that they are ill used, and
therefore they are not to be suffered. Take away the partiality that
is used towards them in matters of common right; change the laws, take
away the penalties unto which they are subjected, and all things
will immediately become safe and peaceable; nay, those that are averse
to the religion of the magistrate will think themselves so much the
more bound to maintain the peace of the commonwealth as their
condition is better in that place than elsewhere; and all the
several separate congregations, like so many guardians of the public
peace, will watch one another, that nothing may be innovated or
changed in the form of the government, because they can hope for
nothing better than what they already enjoy- that is, an equal
condition with their fellow-subjects under a just and moderate
government. Now if that Church which agrees in religion with the
prince be esteemed the chief support of any civil government, and that
for no other reason (as has already been shown) than because the
prince is kind and the laws are favourable to it, how much greater
will be the security of government where all good subjects, of
whatsoever Church they be, without any distinction upon account of
religion, enjoying the same favour of the prince and the same
benefit of the laws, shall become the common support and guard of
it, and where none will have any occasion to fear the severity of
the laws but those that do injuries to their neighbours and offend
against the civil peace?

  That we may draw towards a conclusion. The sum of all we drive at is
that every man may enjoy the same rights that are granted to others.
Is it permitted to worship God in the Roman manner? Let it be
permitted to do it in the Geneva form also. Is it permitted to speak
Latin in the market-place? Let those that have a mind to it be
permitted to do it also in the Church. Is it lawful for any man in his